Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:the drone was a gift (Score 1) 1059 1059

If someone puts stuff in your yard, it is yours to dispose of as you see fit. This covers trash like drink cups and what not. Anything mailed to you becomes yours, even if it was mailed by accident. I think this pattern implies that owner of the drone flew it to the shooters yard, and then the drone becomes the property of the shooter.

Unfortunately, your pattern doesn't exist. Inconsequential things like drink cups may perhaps become yours to do with as you please (because there is a valid assumption that it is abandoned property), but if someone drops a bag of money while walking past your house and it falls on your lawn, it doesn't suddenly become your money. I came home one night to find a box of stuff next to my garage. It was a UPS delivery that was stolen from a neighbor's front step, left behind by the thief when he found out it was cheap Specialty Merchandise Corporation gimcracks. That box didn't become mine.

Nor does anything mailed to you become yours even if it was sent by accident. There is a requirement (at least in all the laws I know) that you make a good-faith attempt at returning the object. That good-faith attempt requires you to notify the sender and make the thing available for return (at their expense), and only if they fail to take advantage of that does it become yours.

And your pattern falls completely apart when you talk about things flying through what you think is your personal airspace. Try arguing that the police helicopter that was assisting in an arrest in your neighborhood becomes your property if it hovers over your house and see how far you get.

I'm not sure about firing a weapon in city limits, but shooting your own stuff seems legal.

The laws against discharge of projectile weapons in city limits do not differentiate based on ownership of target. You can't "shoot your own stuff" legally if you can't "shoot" legally.

Comment Re:Faa rules for RC planes (Score 1) 1059 1059

The only reason manned flight works is air traffic lanes, it's a real highway system up there for the manned guys.

That is simply untrue. The reason manned flight works, and the basis for the system, is the concept of "see and avoid". The only time that "see and avoid" is not rule number 1 is if you are flying in the clouds. If you are doing that, then it has become ATC responsibility for "separation" -- i.e. keeping other people flying in the clouds from running into you and vice versa. If you aren't operating on an IFR clearance, then there are rules about how close to the clouds you can go which are based on giving you and the guy who pops out of a cloud time to see and avoid each other.

Otherwise, "see and avoid", wherever you happen to be.

Now, there are "airways" that are defined routes, but there is no requirement to actually fly on them (unless you've received an ATC instruction to do so), and even large airliners don't need to fly on them. They'll often get instructions like "direct XYZ direct ABC" which bypass those airways. And the FAA Next-Gen concept is to do away with such airways and operate mostly direct. That's because there will be better tracking of aircraft enroute.

And the guys that fly "off-road" (some manned Cessna and tv copter pilots fly over my house! And I found is a big no-no & should be fined) are penalized if caught and yes do create potential dangers.

It is not a danger nor is it illegal to fly "off-road". You are quite incorrect in your belief that it is a "big no-no". It IS a no-no to fly closer than a certain distance from people or structures, or below certain altitudes (1000' over a populated area, unless in the process of landing or taking off), but "off-road" is quite common and quite safe. And that 1000' restriction doesn't apply to helicopters. Their rule says they have to fly at or above a level from which a safe landing can be made in an emergency.

5miles of an airport? I live 3.5 miles from one & can't fly in my own back yard?

Life sucks, but yes. Many airports have controlled airspace from ground to 3000' AGL in a 5 mile radius, specifically to protect aircraft operations into, out of, and in the vicinity of the airport. That's the general boundary of control of ATC at a towered airport, and it is mirrored in uncontrolled fields.

manned operations? really no one (even the ATC in some ways) has good ADB-S yet.

ADS-B has nothing to do with a prohibition on interfering with manned flights. If you can see your toy, then you really ought to be able to see that much larger manned aircraft that is passing by. You don't need radar or transponders.

Comment Re:Is a UAV an "aircraft"? (Score 1) 1059 1059

I wouldn't think so, since as far as I know "aircraft" need to do things like file flight plans and such.

You know wrong. Aircraft don't file flight plans, pilots (or their dispatchers) do. And there is no blanket requirement to file one. The only three requirements I ca think of right now are 1) if you are going to ask for or need an IFR clearance, 2) you are going to cross or enter an ADIZ, or 3) you are crossing into the US and need to deal with ICE. And even for (1) you can file an abbreviated plan at the time you need a pop-up clearance, such as when you've realized the airport you are going to has gone IMC and you need an IFR clearance to get in.

No, "aircraft" is defined by its intended use, from here: "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air." Note that this is not specific to lighter or heavier than air flight, so balloons are also aircraft.

Comment Re:Kentucky Man (Score 1) 1059 1059

What if instead he had something somewhat like Spiderman's web shooters---CO2 powered instead of gunpowder,

I suspect that a lot of cities have copied the same ordinance that ours did. In our city, it is illegal to discharge any projectile weapon within city limits. Doesn't matter if it's gunpowder, CO2, air, or a big rubber band.

Comment Re:Below 500' it probably is (Score 1) 1059 1059

511.070 Criminal trespass in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon premises as to which notice against trespass is given by fencing or other enclosure.

"He" didn't enter until after the drone was shot down. Would you claim it was criminal trespass if your neighbor's child kicked his soccer ball into your yard and didn't come get it right away? That's "knowingly enters" (kick a ball that hard in that direction, guess where it will land) and "remains" (he didn't come get it right away). The only thing that would keep that from being a crime is ... the ball is not a "he". I suppose you could argue the ball is guilty, but it is hard to prove the guilty intent on the part of the ball -- or of the drone.

Comment Re:Below 500' it probably is (Score 1) 1059 1059

Air rights, unless previously given away, are up to 500' above your land or structure.

Given the amount of airspace in the US that is controlled from surface to some specified altitude, I think I need a citation for that claim. You can't seriously claim that the US government got waivers from all the people who live under such airspace before they could create it.

It's as much trespass as the 5 year old who runs across your front lawn to get home for dinner after playing in the park.

Is the correct solution to that trespass to shoot the five year old? That would certainly send a message to all the other neighborhood kids.

Comment Re:Airspace rights (Score 1) 1059 1059

It obviously depends on local laws, however: generally speaking you have full rights and control over the airspace immediately above your property.

Generally speaking, in the US, that's false.

Just to name a few "rights" you do not have:

1. You cannot tell the FAA to move the final approach course for an instrument approach from over your house. You cannot tell them not to vector aircraft over your house.

2. If you build an antenna greater than a certain height in "your" airspace, you must install anti-collision lights.

Two examples.

From it's actions, and from the prompt arrival of the owners, it is also entirely clear that the drone had a camera.

From the fact that the drone was being used to take photographs of a friend's house, I think we can assume it had a camera.

I'd have shot it too.

Do you shoot at all aircraft that pass over your private property, or just those that you think you can get away with because it amuses you to destroy other people's stuff?

Comment Re:"The study provides no support whatsoever" (Score 2) 191 191

Only if you think Chickens and Humans share enough commonality in our immune systems and the viruses that infect us will act the same in a human host as in a chicken.

If humans and chickens didn't share the biological basis for virus and antibody action, then testing vaccines on chickens would be a waste of time. As animals that evolved on planet Earth, we both have the same mechanisms for mutations, virus replication, and antibody systems, even if the biology isn't identical and not every virus that will infect a chicken will have the same effect on a human. If humans and chickens do NOT share enough commonality, then why do they call it "chicken pox"?

It's ridiculous to claim that an issue observed in testing a virus on chickens cannot apply to human viruses and their immune systems because one is a chicken and one is not.

Comment Re:The argument is "leaky" at best too (Score 4, Insightful) 191 191

I don't think the strains that survive an incomplete round of antibiotics have mutated.

You then proceed to describe exactly the process through which the antibiotic sensitive bacteria die so the mutations that have resistance become dominant. Where do you think those antibiotic resistant bacteria got their immunity to that specific antibiotic? They didn't order it from Amazon Prime, just sayin.

It's survival of the fittest only.

And those "fittest" become so because ...?

Comment Re:Can email service providers do more? (Score 1) 58 58

I don't see this as a big problem. Most people will use whatever's installed on their machines, because setting up a new client is too much hassle.

At work I use, let's see, ... three different clients depending on where I am. Or is it four? Should I count different versions of Evolution as one or two? Or three?

The fact is, such a system will not work if only "most people" do it.

To deal with the other issue, we do need extra utility - clients that will automatically sign, and automatically reject and return unsigned emails from addresses with known keys.

oooh, cool. A new DDOS attack vector -- send a flood of emails pretending to be from someone with a "known key" but unsigned, to a group of people who have known keys. If the "return" function doesn't sign the return (and if it is automatic, there is probably a security issue if it does sign them) then the mail system will be brought to its knees as everyone returns every unsigned message. At a minimum, you bring down the victim's email.

Comment Re:Can email service providers do more? (Score 1) 58 58

Of course in a non-corporate/general-email environment, all of those things won't happen (or at least, not all at the same time),

They won't happen at all in any environment where there is no authority to mandate the use of PGP or anything similar. You can't order Mom to sign all her messages any more than you can order a phisher to sign his.

I don't think it is necessary to rely on an unauthenticated message being invalid.

That's the goal. You want to know that the phishing email is invalid. Simply knowing it is neither valid nor invalid is useless, because if it is valid you should act upon it.

You wouldn't ignore it, you'd call the boss (or email him) and ask him if he really send the message you received.

Imagine a work environment where you called the boss every time he sent you an email asking him if he sent it. Imagine the boss is in a meeting and told you to do something important right now.

Yes, if you work in a company where there is a mandate to sign email, and you get an email from your "boss" that isn't signed, the correct action is to ignore it, because that's the reason for the policy in the first place.

And hopefully the boss would almost never "forget" to sign an email,

An email system where we rely on "hope" that everyone does the right thing is why we have spam and phishing problems today.

But you can at least make it easier for people to see a difference between a known-authentic email and an email of unproven origin.

It is trivial to determine an email is "of unproven origin", and yet phishing attacks are reasonably successful. My local admin has to keep reminding people every time a stream of phishing emails comes through, and every time someone does what the phisher asks.

Comment Re:Morse Code (Score 1) 617 617

The Technican Element 3 test wasn't more difficult than the Novice Element 1 and 2 together, so Technican became the lowest license class when they stopped having to take Element 1.

First, that is not true. Novice still exists. You cannot become one, but you can renew as one. Second, so what? You said that prior to 2007 the code test was required for "all but" the lowest license class. That's also not true. Novice, which still exists and is still the lowest license class, required a code test.

The change to 13 WPM was in 1936,

So you're acting as if the code speeds were going up and up and up at the request of the ARRL and you needed to stop the nonsense, when in fact it was 80 years ago that they went up and stopped. Like I said, a LONG time ago.

The Indianapolis cop episode was back in 2009.

I say, you're using an issue from 80 years ago to complain about the ARRL getting code speeds raised, and yet you don't think one example of a government agency drooling over amateur frequencies from just 7 years ago is relevant? One example of an ongoing problem, whereas this radical idea of having people who wanted access to radio spectrum be able to use a mode that was very very very common back then is unacceptable to you.

In 1936 CW was a major mode, and it was important to know. You act as if it was a sin to be made to know something to get access to valuable radio spectrum IN 1936. That awful ARRL asked for increased code ability as part of an incentive licensing system. IN 1936, when ships at sea were required to have CW operators in case of emergency, and before SSB was in heavy use.

A satphone is less expensive than a trained HF operator.

But much more expensive than a VHF operator. Much more expensive. You think the only spectrum that government agencies are drooling over is the HF band? You show your ignorance again.

Iridium costs $30 per month and $0.89 per minute

My latest VHF handheld cost $40 and I pay nothing per month or minute.

You think it's a big deal to lobby against paid operators because there will be objections?

No, Bruce, like I said, I think it will be a big deal because THAT BATTLE HAS ALREADY BEEN LOST, and it was lost a long time ago by the actions of our own ARRL.

And you don't care about young people getting into Amateur Radio.

Oh, fuck you Bruce. I run regular classes and exam sessions specifically to bring in new hams. There are about 100 people who have licenses because I took my time to teach them and then run the exam sessions for them. Some of them I've lost track of, but many of them are active and using ham radio to actually save lives. My youngest licensee so far was 13 or 14. So don't tell me what I don't care about, because you are once again ignorant of the truth.

Fortunately, when the real hams go to get something done, folks like you aren't hard to fight,

More ignorance and arrogance and insult. "Real hams"? "folks like me"? You mean the ones who oppose the intrusion of outside agencies into ham bandwidth? The ones who point out that YOUR actions to make it almost trivial to get a ham license opened the door to more of this? The ones who think that it is arrogant to claim some star status because you "lobbied" to get rid of code by not using it? Well, Bruce, that same "star status" applies to a very large number of folks, and I'll point out once again that you didn't need to pass any tests to be able to use 20 wpm code, and the FCC didn't give a rat's ass that you weren't. They truly could not have cared less.

Right, "folks like us" aren't hard to fight. You don't know who "folks like us" are because you've got a persecution complex and think anyone who disagrees with you on anything you say must be arguing for those 20wpm code tests to come back. That only shows your ignorance, again. It is possible to agree with the removal of the code test and still understand that it wasn't a pure victory for ham radio. But you want to fight "people like us" because you don't care that there might have been a negative impact.

Do you know I even spoke in Iceland when I was lobbying against the code rules?

Wow. That's nice. And you chose not to use 20 wpm code after you passed a test that gave you the privilege of using it on the amateur bands. Oh, wait, you didn't need to pass a test for that.

Read what I write, Bruce, and stop leaping to ignorant and arrogant conclusions about what you think I said.

Comment Re:Can email service providers do more? (Score 1) 58 58

How about just rendering everything as text? Avoid rendering URL's or HTML and you'll solve most of the problems.

There are too many broken email clients that send HTML documents without the correct headers saying it is HTML, so too many broken email clients automatically render messages that LOOK like HTML because that's probably what they ought to do.

And then you get idiots who think they need to send 50k of HTML for a one-sentence email, and get pissy when you tell them that you don't read HTML and to resend whatever the hell it was in text if they want you to get the message.

I'm pretty sure that none of the clients I use can be told to completely ignore HTML, not even a text-based client like pine. I used to have procmail strip every "Mime-Version" and "Content-Type" header in incoming email just to force the client to show it as text, but I got tired of dealing with the pissy folks from above.

Like punning, programming is a play on words.